Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6227
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

I agree an IFV variant Boxer is a low priority. What must be priority is the increased speed of delivery of the Boxer to equip the four Mechanised Infantry Battalions needed for the two Heavy BCTs including all of the variants currently not on order though essential for such units to be viable. The variants needed by the British Army are;

Armoured Personnel Carrier.
Command Vehicle.
Armoured Recovery Vehicle.
Ambulance.
Joint Fires Vehicle.
Signals Vehicle.
ISTAR/EW Vehicle.
Engineering Support Vehicle.
Mortar.
Bridgelayer.
Combat Engineering vehicle.
SPAA Platform.
Overwatch/NLOS Platform.

Some of these roles would historically be carried out by soft skinned platforms and ones that were very lightly armoured. The Heavy BCT needs to be self contained and its vehicles as well protected as is viably possible, so for these formations these support roles will need to be carried out by variants of the Boxer. This is where the modularity of the Boxer should be an advantage to the Army.

Once these four Battalions (or more) are formed the Army should also have decided what will be involved in increasing the Lethality of the Personnel Carrier variant. If we are looking towards 2030, and if the Army has decided to opt for the new small arms being developed over in the US, one option would be for a RWS armed with a .388 cal. LMG, a 40mm AGL and a single 4th Gen. ATGW such as Spike-LR2. This would be lighter that a turret mounting an autocannon, either manned or unmanned.

The .388 cal. LMG could engage targets up to 2000m with precision, whilst the 40mm AGL would provide an area effect capability up to 800m. The Spike-LR2 could engage any enemy AFV or use its man in the loop capability to deliver a long range precision strike up to 4000m. Not having a turret, with or without an ATGW may also have the benefit of the platform not being treated as a Light Tank.

If the Boxer is to be fitted with a turret etc., the first variant to do so may depend on whether the Ajax programme proceeds or not. If not then a Recce variant of the Boxer, possibly based on the Boxer CRV being introduced into the Australian Army would be my choice. This currently has the manned version of the Lance-R turrets which restricts the dismounts to six, but there is an unmanned version which allow eight dismounts to be carried. This would allow the Army to introduce an IFV variant if such a vehicle is deemed necessary, whilst maintaining maximum commonality with the rest of the Boxer fleet.

My views on Boxer are well known here on this board, but I remain resolute that the Boxer should become the core of the British Army's AFV fleet. With it the Army has the chance to greatly reduce its operating and support costs compared to legacy AFVs as well has having a more flexible and deployable order of battle. The need for HETs for example would be limited to the Challenger 3 and the Engineering variants of the Challenger 2, assuming we have done the right thing and replaced the heavy M270 GMLRS with HIMARS, cancelling the upgrade contract for the former as the latter have all the improvements installed already, and we have replaced the AS-90 with a wheeled platform. Having a fleet of vehicles that is more easily and cheaply supported will no doubt increase the availabity of the fleet, meaning the days of searching for vehicles form multiple units to make one battle ready could be over.

Well all of the above is what should happen, whether it does depends on the MoD pulling its finger out and accepting that what it currently has on order will not make viable combat ready formations n matter how much spin is produced. If more money is needed then a strong case needs to be made for it and the programmes need to be run in a way that can withstand scrutiny, and delivers actual results on time and within the budget.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 759
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

Talking about HET...

What if there was a BOXER Heavy-Tractor variant...

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3031
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

Lord Jim wrote:The variants needed by the British Army are;

Armoured Personnel Carrier.
Command Vehicle.
Armoured Recovery Vehicle.
Ambulance.
Joint Fires Vehicle.
Signals Vehicle.
ISTAR/EW Vehicle.
Engineering Support Vehicle.
Mortar.
Bridgelayer.
Combat Engineering vehicle.
SPAA Platform.
Overwatch/NLOS Platform.

Some of these roles would historically be carried out by soft skinned platforms and ones that were very lightly armoured. The Heavy BCT needs to be self contained and its vehicles as well protected as is viably possible, so for these formations these support roles will need to be carried out by variants of the Boxer. This is where the modularity of the Boxer should be an advantage to the Army.
For me the same should be applied to the Light BCT's and for me we should do away with JLTV and double down on Bushmaster which already comes in

Troop carrier
Command
Air defence
Mortar
Direct fire
Ambulance
Maintenance
plus they are already working on a EW type

And for me we should be looking for 8 battalion's worth making 4 BCT's

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 759
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

Self-moved to MRVP thread.

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 769
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

Lord Jim wrote: Armoured Personnel Carrier - agreed
Command Vehicle - agreed
Armoured Recovery Vehicle - agreed
Ambulance - agreed
Joint Fires Vehicle - Is a Boxer based solution necessary?
Signals Vehicle - Is a Boxer based solution necessary?
ISTAR/EW Vehicle - Is a Boxer based solution necessary?
Engineering Support Vehicle - agreed
Mortar - agreed
Bridgelayer - agreed
Combat Engineering vehicle - agreed
SPAA Platform - agreed
Overwatch/NLOS Platform - A vital and desperately needed capability, one of our worst gaps currently but, again, is a Boxer based solution strictly necessary?
Not sure about all that list. I wonder if it would not be better to assign some of those roles to less complex, cheaper vehicles. I am very fond of the Boxer, but I don't think a "Boxer for everything" approach is necessarily needed nor sensible. That's just my uneducated opinion for what it is worth.

Two variants that I think do deserve to feature in that list are an IFV and a recon variant (should Ajax fall through). I think they are among the most important absences on the order book.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6227
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

The Boxer variants would only appear in the two Heavy BCTs and possibly the Deep Fires BCT. The added protection and mobility are needed in my opinion as to the roles of these three BCTs and who there opposition may be at peer level. These variants would be prime targets for the opposition as are vital to the tactical operations of the BCTs. For other units variants of the MRV(P) will be more than adequate.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6227
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote:IFV and a recon variant (should Ajax fall through)
You might want to read the rest of my post up above.

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 769
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

Lord Jim wrote:You might want to read the rest of my post up above.
It wasn't a criticism of the remainder of your post. Was just opining that I think the two variants I mentioned would be in my list from the outset, preferably somewhere near the top; depending on the outcome of Ajax in the case of a recon variant.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6227
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

Don't worry I didn't take it as criticism. At the moment the British Army has stated that it will not use the Boxer as an IFV, hence why I suggested the three weapon combo, which could be installed on a light to medium RWS. The .388 cal. LMG is almost equal in performance to a .50 cal but weight no more than a FN MAG and RWS exist already that mount both the latter and a 40mm AGL. If possible adding a ATGW like Spike-LR2 would round out the firepower needs of a Boxer APC.

This and the other variants on my list are what I believe the British Army needs to make its Mechanised Infantry Battalions and the Heavy BCTs they are assigned to viable combat units.

If Ajax fails then we can either purchase an alternative tracked platform for which a number are available, or develop a recce version of the Boxer like the CRV being delivered to the Australian Army, but with a minimum of British specific equipment. THis could also is the Army decided it needed an IFV, form the basis of such a platform, and by taking the unmanned version of the turret on teh CRV would be able to carry a full section of eight dismounts.

The final Boxer variant that deserves attention is the 155mm SP Gun which could meet the requirement for a new artillery platform to replace the AS-90. IF the were to happen , a ammunition resupply vehicle should follow to work with the 155mm variant on a one to one basis. to provide a constant re supply of ammunition as and when required, in a similar vein to how the M109A6 and its related resupply vehicle operate.

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7181
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by SKB »


(Forces News) 20th September 2021
Forces News has been given a tour of the new Boxer bridging vehicle, which could potentially become part of the British Army's arsenal, at DSEI 21!
More: https://www.forces.net/news/take-tour-n ... ng-vehicle

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 759
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

What is the current UK bridging capability aside from Titan? Alvis Unipower still in use?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6227
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

We still have the "Joint" unit with the Bundeswehr operating around 30 M3 Amphibious Ferries. Recent reports have stated that both country's believe this number os too small for peer level high intensity warfighting and at least double that number are needed to cover the needs of both countries armed forces. I think it is a brilliant piece of kit and is also ideal to support our new medium weight formations as well as out heavy kit.

I do believe we still have the lorry mounted bridging equipment, but I have read that it will have difficulty with the increased weight of the Challenger 3. There is an ongoing programme looking at the next generation of bridging equipment that is aimed at replacing this bit of kit and possibly the M3 though the latter is unlikely. The programme is in its early stages though from what I read in "Military Technology", towards the end of last year.

Whilst the BCT doctrine is better then the previous "Strike" Brigade ideas, we still have the issue of mixing wheeled vehicles with tracked ones. The latter require much heavier engineering support vehicles, which are themselves tracked, leading to the need for HETs to move them during any deployment.

The Boxer variant in the video is essential if we want our AFVs to have the mobility needed to conduct the missions we are asking of them. The fact that it can launch a 18m bridge that can support any AFV in use with the British Army, makes a purchase of enough to equip a Field Engineering Regiment along with other specialised variants a must. Ideally each Heavy BCT would include an Engineering Regiment, though heavy equipment like the Titan and Trajan would be attached form a single unit held at "Divisional", level.

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3031
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

Just watched the John Cockerill marketing man taking about the new 25mm CLWS remote weapons station that can be reloaded under armour and the new 10/30 unmanned turret both could work for Boxer

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6227
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

There are plenty of off the shelf Turrets and RWS that will work with Boxer or more specifically a Mission Module for Boxer, with little heartache. Many companies have seen the Boxer as an opportunity to sell their products and so have worked with the manufacturers to it their offering to a Mission Module and also carry out a level of testing, often dependant on how different theirs is to existing turrets and RWS that have already been cleared for installation.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6227
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

Couldn't find a thread for Yugoslavia, but the video of a recent Trade Show shows their latest 8x8 platform.

What is of interesting re the turrets that are on display including a 57mm auto cannon. This is obviously the Yugoslavian version of the Russian gun that has been fitted to a number of Russian platforms including a new SPAAG. If these guns have a decent APFSDS round, any vehicle so equipped will basically be able to take out any other AFV bar a modern Main Battle Tank. China is also looking at installing larger auto cannon in its AFVs, which sort of make the protection levels of our AFVs except the Challenger 3 open to discussion.

The best way of protecting yourself is to not be shot at in the first place so more emphasis needs to be put on the "Stealthiness", of a platform. To this mobility and speed come next, and then protection. A bit like in the 1970s when tank design realised that the then current APDS and HEAT rounds were able to penetrate almost any thickness of armour, so tanks like the Leopard 1 were developed to use speed as its primary form of protection. The alternative was to greatly increase the armour thickness like on the Chieftain, but even that wonderful tank was vulnerable to HEAT. It wasn't until composite armour came along that armour once again became the primary protection method.

Therefore it seems that any small difference in the protection levels between a 8x8 and tracked AFV is rather moot. More important is protection against lesser threats like mines and here wheeled platforms have a distinct advantage. Most modern 8x8 can lose two or more wheels and are still mobile. Once a tracked AFV loses a track to a mine it is immobile!. The same goes for shell splinters, with a single damaged track being a bigger issue that a number of wheels being damaged.

Where I am going with this in case anyone wondered is that I cannot see any reason why the British are could not adopt the Boxer to replace the Warrior in the IFV role if it decided it wanted to. What seems to be happening at present is that adapting a wheeled platform has been hard enough for teh Army to get its head around, and it just cannot make the leap to having a wheeled IFV at present. Hopefully after operating the Boxer for a while and seeing what other nations have done they will change their minds. With a bit of like the Challenger 3 and the Challenger 2 CEVs will be the only tracked platforms used by the Army, the Royal Marines retaining the Viking. All the remaining AFV roles will be carried out either by Boxer or the winners of the MRV(P) phases one and two, supported by protected MAN HX 6x6 and 8x8 vehicles.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 759
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote: The best way of protecting yourself is to not be shot at in the first place so more emphasis needs to be put on the "Stealthiness", of a platform. To this mobility and speed come next, and then protection.
Low signature is vital in covert ops, but obviously on today's battlefield that's everything from visual signature, thermal, radar, noise, electromagnetic, signals and even chemical (I.e. exhaust fume gases). But mobility is of limited value (except in the case of being in an unexpected location) and speed is somewhat unnecessary.

But another way to protect yourself is with greater reach. If you can observe your opposition from outside the range of their effects, then you have freedom of manoeuvrability, whether you are overt or covert.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6227
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

Very true. With regards to mobility, what I was trying to imply was that due top the penetration that opposing AFVs may have such as a 57mm AC, it would be impractical to outfit our AFVs with armour sufficient to stop such a weapon and therefore we might as well ensure the platform has the maximum mobility possible whilst retaining a reasonable amount of protection against Small Arms, IEDs/Mines and Artillery splinters.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6301
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Ron5 »

RunningStrong wrote:Low signature is vital in covert ops, but obviously on today's battlefield that's everything from visual signature, thermal, radar, noise, electromagnetic, signals and even chemical (I.e. exhaust fume gases).
Still trying to wrap my head around the thought that anyone would think Ajax is the solution for this :?

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6301
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Ron5 »

Perhaps this would be better. German LuWa with 27mm cannon, can be carried in a Chinook...

Image


RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 759
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

Ron5 wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:Low signature is vital in covert ops, but obviously on today's battlefield that's everything from visual signature, thermal, radar, noise, electromagnetic, signals and even chemical (I.e. exhaust fume gases).
Still trying to wrap my head around the thought that anyone would think Ajax is the solution for this :?
Or CV90 for that matter.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6227
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

I think those with the power to make decisions at the time that the requirements for a CVR(T) replacement were made were still under the influence of the Anglo/American Tracer programme. The platform(s) this developed were very much along US Army lines as regards to size as a result of the protection levels desired amongst other things. The idea seems to have been a more active Recce doctrine where one of the objectives was to engage an opponents Recce screen and either drive it back or eliminate it, working with other branches and services, or so I have been led to believe.

To reach a certain level of protection a platform has to be a certain size as well as have the necessary horse power to move at a reasonable pace. Add to this any load carrying capacity, for dismounts say and you end up with a platform the size of Boxer. I think with Ajax the idea was to use an existing platform which would be altered via a relatively simple and low rick programme to facilitate it becoming a Recce platform. However we now know the programme was not simple not low risk and Ajax is where it is now.

Hopefully Boxer will avoid the troubles Ajax has encountered and we will do as little as possible to alter what is a proven effective platform. Additionally adding a basic RWS and Bowman should be enough, plus maybe the standard British Army Boiling Vessel. Boxers Use of Mission Modules should also be of great help in developing those needed to create the variants of the Boxer required by the British Army.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6301
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Ron5 »

RunningStrong wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:Low signature is vital in covert ops, but obviously on today's battlefield that's everything from visual signature, thermal, radar, noise, electromagnetic, signals and even chemical (I.e. exhaust fume gases).
Still trying to wrap my head around the thought that anyone would think Ajax is the solution for this :?
Or CV90 for that matter.
Probably one of the reasons why Bae entered the Scout, a smaller version of a CV90, for the recce program.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6227
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

It wasn't that much smaller though, it really only reduced the hull length by a little, removing one of its road wheels in the process. I do think though that a combination of Boxer CVR with a turret featuring the same Orion sights as the Challenger 3 and Ajax, backed up by small UAVs carried, launched and controlled from the back of the Boxer by the two to three crew back there would do the job.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1136
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by mr.fred »

Lord Jim wrote:It wasn't that much smaller though, it really only reduced the hull length by a little, removing one of its road wheels in the process.
As far as I can tell, the BAE/ hagglunds offering removed the rear stowage bins and didn’t include the raised roof at the rear that later models of the CV90 IFV have.
The demonstrator certainly had 7 roadwheels per side.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6301
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Ron5 »

mr.fred wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:It wasn't that much smaller though, it really only reduced the hull length by a little, removing one of its road wheels in the process.
As far as I can tell, the BAE/ hagglunds offering removed the rear stowage bins and didn’t include the raised roof at the rear that later models of the CV90 IFV have.
The demonstrator certainly had 7 roadwheels per side.
Jim's correct. The offered design (rather than the demonstrator) was shorter and had one fewer road wheels per side.

But Jim saying it was not that much smaller than Ajax forgets that the CV90 is smaller than Ajax to start with. I'd guess the Bae Scout would have been 8-10 tons smaller. A ton or so of that saving would be the rubber tracks.

Boxer with a manned turret, on the other hand, is the size of a house. Not really suitable for reconn. But, of course, any round peg can be hammered into a square hole.

Post Reply